Free translation
By VELIA GOVAERE - Professor UNED
Russia's atrocious attack on Ukraine painfully shocks our expectations of the level reached by human culture. We still live with decisions that unleash the monster of war. There is no reason that justifies a military aggression, regardless of the narrative that precedes it. It hurts to recognize the pernicious survival of Realpolitik, when national interests prevail over the sovereignty of the people. Shameful!
The fall of the Berlin Wall had opened up a firmament of possibilities and the construction of a globalized world seemed to confirm it. I remember that euphoria. History seemed to culminate in the triumph of reason. Declassified archives show the reflections of the moment. It was recognized that the humiliating peace of Versailles had a lacerating weight on Germany in the Nazi rise and in the revanchism that unleashed World War II. According to George W. H. Bush, this time would be different. The victors would be generous.
In exchange for Germany's unification and joining NATO, Secretary Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would not move an inch eastward. At that meeting was Ambassador Matlock. It was on the record that, like Peter on the Mount of Olives, Baker repeated the commitment not once, but three times. Nina Krushchova tells it like this: "At that time I was working for Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow. He told me: The Russians should have asked for that in writing. But they didn't, and that caused a lot of misunderstandings. Putin believes Russia has been swindled" (Der Spiegel 01/21/2022).
That compromise was the spirit of the 1990s and was an essential element of the end of the Cold War. It never made it into a formal treaty, but it was not uncommon. Many agreements of the time were not signed. Neither were those that settled, in 1962, the missile crisis. Under sustained Russian complaint, NATO added 14 more countries in its eastward expansion. Genscher, one of the protagonists as German foreign minister, recently stated: "The spirit of 1990 was violated" (Der Spiegel 10/02/2022).
Putin claims that they were deceived. Beware! In politics nothing is black and white, but gray. That compromise was part of reforms that included democratization, respect for sovereignty and self-determination of the satellite countries of the Soviet claw. East Germany in 53, Hungary in 56 and Czechoslovakia in 68 had known the terror of Russian tanks. That memory explains their fear when the democratizing process was cut short with the arrival of Putin. The democratizing spirit of the 1990s was also violated. If the expansion of NATO favored American geopolitical interests, it also corresponded to the yearning for security of the nations concerned.
Yeltsin had understood this resentment when he proposed to Clinton a broad system of guarantees, without winners or losers (15/09/93). It would have been a new Yalta. Clinton ignored it. Elections were approaching and it was not a viable option in swing states, with strong migration from Eastern Europe. All this does not justify Putin. But it does allow us to go an inch further than clinical pathology because the history is not explained as a mere whim of unhinged leaders. The rhetoric of hate is a bad advisor. It is a populism that clouds reasoning. It is necessary to go deeper.
Baker lamented with Gorbachev that at the end of World War I the Allies had mismanaged the opportunity for peace that had been created. Now began the era of Pax Americana. Perhaps history will judge harshly the wastefulness of those years of unipolar hegemony of the United States at the end of the Cold War. There followed senseless war adventures that also served the rise of Putin. The world would have been better served if the Gorbachev commitments of the 1990s had been fulfilled. And even more so with better foundations of collective security.
That does not justify aggression against Ukraine, often a martyr since the Rus had been razed to the ground by hosts of Genghis Khan. China's Minister Wang made it clear in Munich, "The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each country must be respected and protected. This is a basic rule of international relations and Ukraine is no exception." He added: "The Europeans should seriously reconsider whether a continued expansion of NATO to the East really leads to lasting peace and stability." (Der Spiegel, 20/02/2022).
This war is a turning point and threatens to change everything. Is it a new Cold War or has its end never been consolidated? The dismantling of tensions seems to be beyond the capabilities of the opposing actors. What a contrast of scenarios, with the opportunities offered to the world by the New Silk Road! What will prevail, winds of collaboration or winds of war?
In 1968, Dubcek attempted socialism with a human face. It was the Prague Spring. Moscow did not tolerate it. When Russian tanks rolled in, Dubcek understood his warlike disadvantage and ordered to lay down their weapons. That invasion was condemned by the world, but it did not turn into a tragedy. I would give him a medal. But the society of the spectacle does not reward that kind of moral courage. In Ukraine, Zelensky called for resistance. It is his right and he has his honor. The world applauds, but is it the wise thing to do? That is how Doña Laura understood it when Ortega's hoof transgressed our border.
Aggression deserves condemnation, but humanity also needs peace. It is the impossible quadrature of a circle of contradictions. In the world' s soul we hear the metallic noise of an old curtain falling. The pessimism of collective indignation contrasts with the rainbow of hope that accompanied the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is another era, different times. No one is safe anymore. Is it too naïve to advocate peace? The hour calls for luminaries who have yet to appear. But I cling to hope against all hope (Rom. 4.18). That is my counter-narrative.
